The second is that this constitutes quasi-intentional harm: no retaliation is due, but aggravated blood money must be paid from the assailant’s own wealth. This is the view of most scholars and the position transmitted from Mālik by the Iraqi scholars. Abū Hanīfa, Abū Yūsuf and Muhammad held that the quasi-intentional category applies only to killing, not to wounds. The first view is more correct. Its evidence is the hadith narrated by Anas concerning Umm al-Rubayyiʿ. It is related in the Sahīh:

“The daughter of al-Nadr, the sister of al-Rubayyiʿ, slapped a girl and broke her tooth. They brought their dispute before the Prophet ﷺ, who ordered retaliation. Umm al-Rubayyiʿ said, ‘O Messenger of Allah, will you exact retaliation from so-and-so? By Allah, you shall not exact retaliation from her!’ The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Glory be to Allah, Umm al-Rubayyiʿ! Retaliation is prescribed in Allah’s Book.’ She said, ‘By Allah, retaliation shall never be exacted from her!’ She persisted until they accepted blood money. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ then said, ‘Among Allah’s servants are those who, if they swore an oath by Allah, He would fulfil it for them.’”

This is how it appears in Muslim’s book: the girl was the sister of al-Rubayyiʿ, the paternal aunt of Anas ibn Mālik, the narrator of the hadith; and the person who swore the oath, concerning whom the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “Among Allah’s servants are those who, if they swore an oath by Allah, He would fulfil it for them,” was Anas ibn al-Nadr. Al-Qābisī’s transmission of the Book of Prescribed Punishments likewise states that the woman who inflicted the injury was al-Rubayyiʿ’s sister, as in Muslim’s book.

According to Mālik’s school, the assailant must also receive a disciplinary punishment in addition to retaliation, because of his brazen conduct. ʿAtāʾ ibn Abī Rabāh said: “Wounds are subject to retaliation. The ruler has no right to have him beaten or imprisoned; retaliation alone is prescribed. ‘Your Lord is never forgetful.’ Had He willed, He would have commanded beating and imprisonment.”

If, however, he strikes deliberately in play, there are three views:

The first is that retaliation is obligatory, since this constitutes intentional injury.

The second is that no retaliation is due, but aggravated blood money is required, since this constitutes quasi-intentional harm.

The third is that it is accidental, so ordinary, unaggravated blood money is payable by those collectively liable for his blood money, if the amount exceeds one third of the full blood-money payment. These views correspond to the differing opinions concerning a blow struck in play that results in death. The same applies when someone deliberately strikes another to discipline him, provided he is entitled to administer such discipline. This follows the differing opinions concerning loss of life that I have already mentioned, so there is no point in repeating them.

Section

Some of these bodily members have functions peculiar to them. For example, the eye’s particular function is